Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Sign the petition to stop the transfer of specialist disability services to the private sector

Petition to stop the transfer of specialist disability services to the private sector – May 2017 (PDF version)

The PSA is again publicly calling on the Government to stop the risky privatisation of disability services. We need everyone across the mighty PSA to stand with our members in Ageing, Disability and Home Care.
This Government is continuing with its appalling privatisation agenda, that will give away the services that people with disability need most.  We call on the new Minister for Disability Services, Ray Williams, to halt the transfer of all public disability services to the private sector.
This time they can’t fob us off or use tricky parliamentary processes to bury debate on this issue. We’re strong, we’re united and we won’t stop fighting.
Sign now!
We call on all members to take a minute today to sign and share the petition so we can show the NSW Government we won’t allow it to sell-off our services without a fight.
Click HERE to sign the petition.
Keep up pressure the MPs
Help us get this issue front and centre by emailing your MP today and asking colleagues, family and friends to join you in fighting against disability privatisation.
Emailing your MP is simple, just click HERE and enter your postcode.

Update and Connect with the PSA

If you have moved home or work location, or you have changed your contacts, please update your membership details HERE.

Authorised by Stewart Little, General Secretary, Public Service Association of NSW, 160 Clarence Street Sydney
Please do not reply to this email address. The PSANews email account is not monitored.
For membership inquiries, please email membership@psa.asn.au

Saturday, May 6, 2017

UTS CPSU Log of Claims 2017


The CPSU serves the following claims on the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) for an Enterprise Agreement for professional staff employed by UTS.

That the University of Technology Sydney Professional staff Agreement 2017 shall provide:

1.                  All existing conditions of employment to be maintained for professional staff, unless otherwise improved as a result of negotiations with the CPSU.

Consultation

2.                  The university and combined unions will form a Joint Consultative Committee (JCC) for consultation on matters affecting Employees covered by the Agreement.

3.                  Improvements to the process for policy development will be dealt with through the JCC

4.                  Ensure increased transparency and accountability during Consultation relating to Change Management.

Salary and Related Matters

5.                  Negotiated and fully funded Salary (and allowance) increases guaranteed  over the life of the Agreement. Professional staff are to be reimbursed for any delays and each pay increase will compound onto the previous salary.

6.                  Professional staff provided with career paths through ongoing training and career development opportunities. This will create a trained, multi skilled workforce with increased job satisfaction.

7.                  Any staff member may apply to have the classification level of their position reviewed. If the position is reclassified to a higher level the incumbent will retain the position. 

8.                  Improvements to broad banding, so that all broad banding proposals will be developed in accordance with the agreed guidelines.

9.                  Opportunities to act in a higher position shall be offered to eligible staff on a rotating basis. When considering which person shall act in a higher position, the supervisor shall consider a range of issues including merit, staff development and the fair allocation of higher duties allowances.



Hours of Work

10.              Ordinary hours of duty band to span from 6am until 6pm Monday to Friday excluding Public Holidays.

11.              To ensure the right to flexible work arrangements be available to all professional staff in the University, with all requests documented. When requests are denied, management will provide reasons in writing.

12.              The University shall ensure that when staff work beyond normal hours they will be paid a meal allowance in accordance with the clause in this Agreement.

13.              Cab Charge dockets supplied or reimbursed through NEO to staff working after 8pm as a WH&S measure.

14.              Provision for ‘Working From Home’ arrangements to demonstrate a commitment to providing a flexible working environment;

15.              Working hours and workloads will always take into account caring responsibilities.


Leave

16.              All staff should be able to access their leave at a mutually agreed time and date. The supervisor/manager will provide in writing a reason why leave cannot be granted.

17.              A commitment that professional staff who are on leave for more than one week have their positions backfilled

18.              Improvements to parental leave, including:

                                      i.      primary carer leave regardless of gender,
                                    ii.      fully paid parental leave to fixed term employees if their contract expires after 20 weeks of pregnancy,
                                  iii.      in the event of a multiple birth an employee is entitled to four weeks extra paid parental leave for each additional child and;
                                  iv.       a clear statement that all paid parental leave entitlements shall be in addition to the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010.

19.              A commitment to provide increased support to professional staff experiencing family and domestic violence, including:
20.               
                                      i.      20 days per year for paid special DV leave

                                    ii.      Where requested by the employee, temporary or permanent changes to working times and patterns, changes to specific duties, or redeployment or relocation

                                  iii.      Measures to ensure a safe working environment, for example changing a telephone number to avoid harassing phone calls

                                  iv.      Professional staff cannot be adversely affected at work because they are experiencing domestic violence – for example being disciplined for job performance problems or denied opportunities for promotion, and
                                    v.      Professional staff who support other staff experiencing domestic violence may take carers leave to accompany them to court, to hospital or to mind children

21.              For the purposes of long service leave recognition of prior service is to include service with a controlled entity of UTS, TAFE NSW, CSIRO, and ANSTO.

General Conditions

22.              The preferred employment of professional staff should be on a continuing basis. Continuing positions which are substantively vacant should be filled permanently

23.              Improvements in process of  conversion of fixed term and casual professional staff to continuing employment status

24.              A commitment to investigate provision of public transport (Opal Card) for professional staff

25.              To avoid printing costs and improve sustainability the university will provide their staff with tablets

26.              The Agreement recognises that Professional Staff are involved in delivery of teaching and remunerates them accordingly

27.              A $2000 sign-on payment for all professional staff

28.              Indexing the current employer superannuation contributions so that any increases that result from the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Act 2012 during the term of this agreement will result in increased superannuation payments to professional staff.

29.              Severance payments for fixed term staff to be the same as found in the Higher Education Industry—General Staff—Award 2010.

30.              An outsourcing clause that provides that UTS cannot outsource the work performed by existing professional staff unless:

                                      i.      In particular circumstances where specialised equipment or specialised services are not readily available or cost effective within the University. Supporting evidence to back this claim must be provided in writing to the CPSU.

                                    ii.      The CPSU reserves the right to challenge any potential outsourcing of services/work that are currently done, or could be done by CPSU members.


31.        Professional staff elected as Health and Safety Representatives (HSR) will be provided with an            allowance comparable to the first aid allowance.

32.        Misconduct clause to include and define “misconduct” and “serious misconduct”.





Termination of Employment

33.         Improvements to the redundancy clause, including:

                                      i.      for the purpose of redundancy/retrenchment pay, continuous service is to include any service as a casual at UTS

                                    ii.      payment of all reasonable costs and charges associated with a program of retraining or other agreed measure to mitigate the effects of a position being made redundant
                                  iii.      job search assistance scheme of up to $5000 each, for professional staff made redundant

Other

34.            The CPSU reserves the right to raise other matters throughout negotiations that would     

                 benefit professional staff at UTS.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

(ACTU) secretary Sally McManus on termination of Enterprise Agreements

McManus reveals number one workplace law priority

Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) secretary Sally McManus has told striking Fletcher Insulation workers the peak body will demand changes to the Fair Work (FW) Act to stop employers threatening to cancel enterprise agreements (EA) during bargaining.
Speaking at the Fletcher picket on April 6, McManus said unions had to continue defeating employers "on the ground" every time they threatened to cancel EAs until the law was changed.
Fletcher applied on March 28 to have its EA terminated after workers had been on strike for some 40 days (WF 30/3/2017).
Fletcher and the union were in Fair Work Commission (FWC) conciliation today (April 12) to try to resolve the dispute.
McManus said when Fletcher and other employers threatened to terminate EAs, "every other boss is going to think exactly the same thing that - 'we will sit on this EA and pretend to negotiate, then we will threaten to cancel it'.
"We cannot have the situation where employers can have in their back pocket the ability to threaten to cancel EAs while negotiating with workers," she said.
"Blind Freddie can tell that is unfair because it totally changes the bargaining power that you have got when you are sitting at the bargaining table.
"It was never meant to be that employers would have a lever of power that would threaten to have workers dropped back to award (rates and conditions).
"We have got to change the laws. This is the only solution to this particular problem.
"It is one of the number one things that the ACTU will demand of politicians to act on."
On March 15, AWU had told the Senate inquiry into Corporate Avoidance of the FW Act the default for EA bargaining breakdown should be FWC arbitration (WF 16/3/2017).

Fletcher blue ACTU's number one dispute

McManus said she attended the Fletcher protest to inform strikers the ACTU would ensure they had the support of the rest of the trade union movement.
She said ACTU would ramp up fundraising to help the strikers.
"We are going to take your story from one end of Australia to another so that everyone knows what is happening here on this picket line so you never feel alone," McManus said.

"As the leader of the union movement across the country - you are our number one dispute at the moment."

Friday, March 3, 2017

Explainer: where to from here on penalty rates?



Image 20170302 5525 17qi8c9
A Canberra barista makes coffee. Many low-paid workers will be affected by the Fair Work Commission’s decision on penalty rates. AAP/Lukas Coch
Ray Markey, Macquarie University
In its long-awaited decision, the Fair Work Commission on February 23 reduced Sunday and public holiday penalty rates for over 700,000 workers covered in four awards for hospitality, fast food, retail and pharmacies, as part of the Modern Awards Review. The decision has inspired heated debate, both for and against. And the matter is far from resolved. The Conversation
The Labor Party and the ACTU are firmly opposed. The Coalition government is so far moving cautiously, knowing that the issue may well play a significant role in the next federal election. The prime minister yesterday refused to say clearly if the government supported the decision or not, while Liberal Senator Eric Abetz has argued for a grandfathering of current employees’ wages so that only new employees would be affected.

Background to the decision

Employers had argued that Sunday penalty rates should be reduced to the level of Saturday rates because:
  • we now live in a 24/7 society where Sundays are no longer special days, and
  • a reduction would enable employers to open for longer hours on Sundays and employ more workers.
The Productivity Commission broadly supported employer arguments. Nevertheless, the evidence for these arguments is weak.
The employment generation case is based predominantly on economic theory rather than empirical data. The Productivity Commission implicitly recognised this when it recommended that the onus of proof be reversed, so that unions should be required to demonstrate that wage reductions would not generate employment growth.
There is also substantial evidence that weekend workers have difficulty in making up for lost time at weekends with family and friends during the week.

The decision

The Fair Work Commission, which the Rudd government established in 2009, only partially accepted employer arguments. It acknowledged the difficulty of quantifying employment impacts, but was particularly swayed by the evidence of small-business witnesses that a cut in penalties would allow them to offer employees more work.
However, it reached slightly different conclusions for different sectors (see below). It also argued that while the “disutility” for Sunday work had declined, it remained greater than for Saturdays.
So the commission’s decision was nuanced and complex. The new rates vary between sectors and according to employment status.
Acknowledging the hardship that predominantly low-income workers on Sunday penalty rates would face, the commission envisages that, while public holiday rates will be effective from July 1 2017, reductions to Sunday rates will be phased in over two to five years. It has called for submissions from the parties in this regard. Casual workers have also not suffered as severely as others.
For restaurants and clubs, the commission did not reduce rates because it considers that employers presented insufficient evidence supporting their arguments – it requires further evidence. It also stated that the changes decided “provide no warrant for the variation of penalty rates in other modern awards”.

Who is affected?

The following summarises how the main groups of workers are affected:
  • hospitality – full-time and part-time workers had rates reduced from 175% to 150%, but casuals were not reduced
  • fast food – rates reduced from 150% to 125% for level 1 employees (commonly aged 14-20), but for casuals it was 175% to 150%
  • retail – rates reduced from 200% to 150%, but for casuals only from 200% to 175%
  • pharmacy sector – rates cut from 200% to 150%, and 200% to 175% for casuals
  • restaurants and clubs – no cuts but there may be in the future.

Why does Labor oppose it?

The sheer inequity of the decision has aroused extensive opposition. Estimates of the loss in income for workers on penalty rates range from $3,500 to $6,000 (by ACTU president Ged Kearney) every year. This is very substantial for workers who are largely at the lowest-paid end of the labour market spectrum. Many rely on penalty rates, especially on Sundays, to meet household expenses.
The Productivity Commission also acknowledged that these workers are unlikely to receive sufficient additional hours to make up for the loss of pay.
In addition, this is a highly gendered issue, since the sectors affected are dominated by female employees. The economic gender gap may widen as a result.
It is unusual historically for the Fair Work Commission or its predecessors to reduce wages across the board for whole classes of workers or sectors. The most notable previous instance was in 1931, in the exceptional circumstances of the Great Depression.
But the current decision has occurred in a relatively buoyant economy at a time when a shift is already occurring from wages to profits. The day before the commission’s decision, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released figures showing that private sector wages growth was 1.8%, the lowest since it began collecting data in 1997. At the same time, company profits soared by 26.2% for 2016.
In the retail sector, gross operating profits for unincorporated businesses – mainly the small businesses the decision was designed to benefit - grew by 11.5% for the December quarter alone. Most of the businesses affected will also enjoy a tax reduction if the government has its way.

What are the options for contesting the decision?

The ACTU intends to apply in the commission for “take-home pay orders”, which might protect existing workers from reductions or mitigate them. However, the commission has already indicated that it did not favour any general “red circling” or grandfathering that would preserve current Sunday penalty rates for all existing employees.
Unions will also exert pressure on employers to pay over award rates. Some large employers, such as Coles and Woolworths, already do this through enterprise agreements, although these provide lower penalty rates for some part-time workers.
In addition, a small number of employers have indicated that they will not apply the cuts to their employees, notably cosmetics retailer Lush and some small cafes. However, many workers in retail and hospitality are entirely award-reliant, which means they will be paid according to the commission’s ruling.
Enforcement is a further issue that has not arisen in the debates so far. Quite illegally, many employers, particularly in hospitality and retail, do not actually pay prescribed penalty rates, and the Fair Work Ombudsman catches only some of these. The 7-Eleven case was a stark reminder of this.

What happens from here?

Penalty rates could hurt the government in the next election. So far it has treaded warily on the issue. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has said the government respects the ruling of the commission, but stressed that it had the power to implement the changes gradually to soften the blow for workers.
We can expect a strong ACTU campaign focusing on key marginal seats leading up to the next federal election. The Labor Party has indicated that it will reverse the decision if it is returned to government at the election. Labor has successfully wedged the government on the issue, after the government prevented tabling of a private member’s bill to protect penalty rates.
The government claims that all parties should abide by the umpire’s decision and that parliament should not intervene. However, it has previously supported penalty rate reductions. It has also intervened against umpire’s decisions it did not support: special legislation covering Victorian firefighters and abolition of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal are two examples.
In the longer term, we can also expect employers to come back for further reductions now that they have their foot in the door. Penalty rate reduction, and even abolition, has been an ongoing employer claim for over 20 years.
Ray Markey, Professorial Fellow and former Director of the Centre for Workforce Futures, Macquarie University
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.